The Vexing Line

 

Photo by Evgeniy Surzhan on Unsplash

One of my good friends is another local architect, Eric Hall. Eric and I worked together for a brief time after I first started at Robertson/Sherwood/Architects back in 1988. Since then, we’ve maintained an ongoing dialog about the nature of our work (albeit sporadically, especially of late). We most recently connected via email after both attending this month's Construction Specifications Institute tour of the Huestis Hall renovation project.

The following is our latest exchange, which addresses Eric’s belief there is a divide between theorists and practical people. The article he cites is by Jeffrey Tucker, who is a staunch libertarian and anarcho-capitalist. Entitled The Eggheads vs. the Doers, the article betrays Tucker’s disdain for “academics, bureaucrats, modelers, and other highly credentialed experts.” Notwithstanding his questionable rejection of scientific consensus, Tucker correctly asserts that theory unchecked by practical experience can be catastrophic.
 
Eric’s message to me comes first, after which is my response:
 
RANDY:
 
Great to see you the other evening . . . it has become clear that you and I are becoming the new sage members of our local profession. Our elders are retiring around us, leaving us as the senior members that are wise beyond our years, or so some might believe. . . It made me think of perhaps a new more focused mission for CSI. [The organization] has languished of late in my mind, because it lacks relevancy, at least IMHO.
 
I found this in my email box, and for some reason you came to mind as I was reading it. I think mostly because it used architecture as a delivery vehicle for the parable of the vexing line between theorist and practitioner. I think I remember you saying once that you really just wanted to do good buildings that worked. You were right of course, and that is a constant challenge. I find myself having the most conversations with staff as to what is the best way to detail and construct an element, followed only by what is the best way to communicate those desires. And it truly amazes me how much more, with every passing year, that we detail, and delineate, as seemingly the world of construction either gets more ignorant, or more savvy to the invariable downside to taking on any construction detailing decision. It is both strangely rewarding, while being simultaneously daunting. I increasingly feel like we deserve every bit of the fees that we earn.
 
In any event, hope you had a good St. Paddy’s, as you ready yourself for March Madness and all the joy I know it brings you.
 
Take good care.
 
Eric

*    *    *    *    *    * 

 
ERIC:
 
Good to see at the Huestis Hall tour as well. I don’t know about being a “sage” member of the local architecture community! I’ve always felt like an imposter. My hope is to reach retirement without breaking anything before then.
 
CSI is far from lacking in relevancy. The need for effective construction communications will always be relevant. What it does lack is the kind of messaging that resonates with emerging professionals. I’m not sure what the solution is.
 
Regarding the “vexing line between theorist and practitioner,” I’m not sure you saw this blog post I wrote last fall: SW Oregon Architect: Commonsense Architecture. I’m not inclined to blame theorists. This has little to do theory, which involves thinking, discussing, and writing about architecture. It encompasses critical commentary, which we’re engaging in here. Academicians are not the issue; instead, I think it is a misdirected (and sometimes ego-driven) need to be different, challenging, or attention-grabbing.
 
A growing problem is the increasing complexity of building science and the sheer breadth of issues architects must consider on every project. We’d be better served if we focused on doing buildings right, employing tried and true principles of construction. This is increasingly difficult given how much we’re expected to know and the associated risk we’re expected to bear. One remedy may be to accept an increase in specialization and a proliferation of discrete expertise. Two examples of this focused expertise are building envelope consultants and accessibility consultants. Each of us alone can only know so much; we can’t be experts about everything. Architects will continue to relinquish more and more control over the design of buildings. In the future, only a few architects will retain responsibility for overseeing the big picture. The rest will have careers that take them down much more focused tracks. An analog is the medical profession, wherein there are primary care providers but also highly compensated specialists.
 
I’m going to retire at the right time for me. Beside the personal reasons for doing so, I’m beginning to think the profession requires more of architects than we’re equipped to deliver (absent the intense specialization I mention above)—this isn’t what drew me to a career in architecture. In some respects, you and I have lived and worked through a “golden age.” We’ve seen plenty of change, progress, and enlightenment over the past four decades. The way forward always seemed clear. Today it is far less so, which I guess mirrors much of what is happening around us in the world.
 
Randy